Muslims killed 80 million Hindus to conquer India

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Yea and hindus killed sikhs on sight. Cycle of violence never ends, does it? Or maybe the sikhs should punish the whole hindu community for atrocities done to them by hindus? What say you?

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

<quoted text>Yea and hindus killed sikhs on sight. Cycle of violence never ends, does it? Or maybe the sikhs should punish the whole hindu community for atrocities done to them by hindus? What say you?

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered.

What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century.

Another Ignorant Fool! Copy and paste from idiots like Ali Sina, his FFI and other goons.

First, Will Durant and Koenraad Elst were no great historians. For the two, I can give a more than a dozen, who disagree with them. Koenraad Elst was a pro-Hindu freak and the hardcore Hindu Advani quoted only from him.

Talking about 80 million Hindus being slaughtered is laughable. It is like saying, "Move over, Jews! Here we Hindus come with a bigger hoax!"

The population of India was 239 million in 1901, 1095 million in 2001 and you can see that the breeding was the fastest in the last 100 years.

In the 10th-12th Century period, the population was about 35 million against the world population of 170 million.

The claim that Muslims killed 80 million shows that the Hindus had no balls at all. If it were true, all the renowned Historians would have said the same.

Coming to your typical idiotic Indian Hindu bullshit, "Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.", you do not even know a word of Farsi or Pushto.

Kush means range. Koh-e-Hindu-Kush means Hindu mountain ranges. If the Muslims could have killed 80 million Hindus, they did not need to take the slaves to go through the silly tough route. They could have shipped them on dhows plying between Gujrat, Muscat and Bahrain.

And nobody has found any Hindu skull hills or even a single Hindu skull on the mountain ranges. This is just like the idiotic claim of Christians that the Romans had crucified thousands at Golgotha in Jerusalem and so far archaeologists have found only one heel bone! LMAO

You should hang your head in shame and read why was Will Durant's book banned in the British India by the British?

General Dyre of Great Britain surrounded innocent women, children, old folks locked all entrances to the place in Amritsar and opened fired. 1590 dead from 1620 bullets. Who were they? That is when Gandhi told the British Viceroy, "It is time you walk up out of India". Remember?

""A troop of English soldiers had reached the spot, and without warning, began firing into a crowd that had women and children. Some people got as many as twenty-one bullet wounds in their bodies.

A young Sikh boy stood in front of a soldier and asked him to fire at him, which the soldier unhesitatingly did.

Similarly, an old woman came forward, was shot, and fell down wounded. The police snatch off the men's garments, twist and squeeze the testicles, and even batter them until the victims foam at the mouth and become unconscious."

Madeline Slade, an eyewitness, says: "And so we went on from this house to another.

Lathi blows on head chest, stomach and joints, thrusts with lathis in private parts, tearing off loin cloths and thrusting of sticks into anus, dragging of wounded by legs and arms, beating them, throwing of wounded men into thorn hedges or salt water, thrusting of pins and thorns into men's bodies..."

This was done by the British, using your own subservient Hindus and Gurkhas. Go kiss their asses.

same as anywhere where i have travelled on this blue planet - islam fooooks it up and it is happening everywhere thanks to these baby machines and indoctrination from a war manual. geert wilders is right.

<quoted text>Yea and hindus killed sikhs on sight. Cycle of violence never ends, does it? Or maybe the sikhs should punish the whole hindu community for atrocities done to them by hindus? What say you?

He can't say anything. For his own history, he has to run to some Western lunatics to find out.

<quoted text>Yea and hindus killed sikhs on sight. Cycle of violence never ends, does it? Or maybe the sikhs should punish the whole hindu community for atrocities done to them by hindus? What say you?

Passing the buck to the Sikhs?Sikhs and Hindus are coexisting for thousands of years.A small strife due to the BJP Hindu fanatcs was the cause of the recent stirfe. Now they are again as friends as ever.

Correction, GaneshShould read:General Dyre of Great Britain surrounded innocent women, children, old folks locked all entrances to the place in Amritsar and opened fire.1590 dead from 1620 bullets. Who were they? That is when Gandhi told the British Viceroy, "It is time you walk out of India". Remember?

Once again passing the buck to the Britishers. Compared to what the Britishers have done, you Muslim have destroyed of Hindus millions- At least the Britishers have done so many good things for the Hindus and for India- laying railway system ,hospitals, schools,courts for justice, military system, modern office system for business,engish language to mention a few. What the Muslims have done in their 2000 years of rule in India-except looting the hindu temples,foring Hindus to convert to Islam, levying Jiziyya tax on Hindus etc?

<quoted text>And yet they live in peace with each other.(As far as I'm aware)Perhaps the Muslims could learn from them.

Hello, please go to youtube and search for sikhs in pakistan. As far as i can see, Sikhs in Pakistan are living quite okay. In fact, their religion is preserved and not being assimilated with hinduism, nor is the punjabi culture being victimised by Bollywood(oh yea, with the Ballee Ballee).

Everyone seems to think that muslims are just the trouble makers. It's a fact that Hinduism is always claiming that other religions belong to them. Some nutter on the sikh forum actually claimed Islam is a form of Hinduism, in particular Shivaism (yet he derides on Islam?). Sikhs in India..where do i start?they idolise the Gurus pictures, much like the hindus even though that's explicitly not allowed. They adopt hindu traditions.

At least the sikhs in pakistan are sticking to Guru Nanak's faith. Well done. Guru Nanak would have been proud.

<quoted text>Passing the buck to the Sikhs?Sikhs and Hindus are coexisting for thousands of years.A small strife due to the BJP Hindu fanatcs was the cause of the recent stirfe. Now they are again as friends as ever.

Don't get me wrong, i don't agree with the establishment of Khalistan. But honestly, why are Indians so afraid of owning up to the truth? Actually, why do hindus feel like there's a need to bring down other religions in order to glorify Hinduism? Blowing out another's candle won't make yours any brighter.

Passing the buck to the sikhs? How about Hindus stop passing the buck to them?

<quoted text>He can't say anything. For his own history, he has to run to some Western lunatics to find out.He cannot produce anything from his own Historians in India. lol!SalaamsBMZ

And Muslim TURDs are so impressed with Muslim ISA not knowing how he was saved, his Injeel stolen, his apostles writing a BIBLE and not one SINGLE bastard Muslim could rely on their own historian or intellect to say why except to rely on the TURD bastard muhammad and his Quran. Child...O...Child. Have read the Quran I wrote for you in Singapore. LOL.CheersBMZ

<quoted text>Once again passing the buck to the Britishers. Compared to what the Britishers have done, you Muslim have destroyed of Hindus millions- At least the Britishers have done so many good things for the Hindus and for India- laying railway system ,hospitals, schools,courts for justice, military system, modern office system for business,engish language to mention a few. What the Muslims have done in their 2000 years of rule in India-except looting the hindu temples,foring Hindus to convert to Islam, levying Jiziyya tax on Hindus etc?

I have read the entire History of India by Indians and none talks about millions of Hindus being killed by Muslims. Zilsch! Nada!

And you come up with one unknown and unheard of German idiot, who gave you a figure of 80 million, without any proof and you accept that. I blew this rubbish by giving you an idea on the population of India.

I took time to explain the "Hind-Kush", which was, according to you and other anti-Islam international freaks, a mountain region, where Hindu slaves were killed and that was why the mountain ranges were called "Hindu-Kush". How hilarious is that? I clarified it.

Was any single hill of Hindu skulls discovered in India? That is another junk and stuff created by Hindu freaks.

The point is that there was no History of Ancient India properly recorded. The British wrote the History of India, exploiting it to create the divide, which was the policy of Divide and Rule, on which they pitted one against the other, in order to keep control.

My main gripe with you was on the false claim of 80 million and the Hindu-Kush as both are ABSURD.

Now, please read this extract:

"The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years.

How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?

Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867).

His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with Muhammedans, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants.

Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history."

I have also read the history book, written by Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande and no where does he talk about 80 million or millions of Hindus slaughtered.

This claim of 80 million Hindus being slaughtered by Muslims, is more absurd than saying six million Jews were killed by the Nazi Germans, as no substantiated figures are available.

<quoted text>I gave you that quote from Will Durant, as a side dish.You did not address my main dish that I gave you:http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TQB...I have read the entire History of India by Indians and none talks about millions of Hindus being killed by Muslims. Zilsch! Nada!And you come up with one unknown and unheard of German idiot, who gave you a figure of 80 million, without any proof and you accept that. I blew this rubbish by giving you an idea on the population of India.I took time to explain the "Hind-Kush", which was, according to you and other anti-Islam international freaks, a mountain region, where Hindu slaves were killed and that was why the mountain ranges were called "Hindu-Kush". How hilarious is that? I clarified it.Was any single hill of Hindu skulls discovered in India? That is another junk and stuff created by Hindu freaks.The point is that there was no History of Ancient India properly recorded. The British wrote the History of India, exploiting it to create the divide, which was the policy of Divide and Rule, on which they pitted one against the other, in order to keep control.My main gripe with you was on the false claim of 80 million and the Hindu-Kush as both are ABSURD.Now, please read this extract:"The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years.How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867).His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with Muhammedans, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants.Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history."I have also read the history book, written by Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande and no where does he talk about 80 million or millions of Hindus slaughtered.This claim of 80 million Hindus being slaughtered by Muslims, is more absurd than saying six million Jews were killed by the Nazi Germans, as no substantiated figures are available.CheersBMZ

We have a Holcause Denier from Muslims in Singapore. Alter Ego -- don't they teach you history in Singapore or is the history being overseen by TURD bastards like yourself. Can we tell our children Mulim girls are destined to be service whore of Allah for eternity.

It will help with their perception of Muslim women. The more they cover up the more intense will their feelings towards Muslim women will be. You already have a HATE manual in Quran and it really need to be re-balanced.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.